DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The amendment to the title submitted on 12/22/2025 has been accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. (US 2014/0321603) in view of Yi et al. (US 2016/0213344; cited in IDS filed 1/31/23).
Regarding claim 1, Taguchi teaches a method for determining material of an object using an x-ray imaging device in communication with a processor (X-ray CT apparatus 1 for discriminating a plurality of materials; ¶¶ 0025-0027, ¶¶ 0033-0041, ¶ 0054, ¶ 0072, ¶ 0085, Figs. 1, 4, and 5), the method comprising:
the x-ray imaging device capturing a sample set of a plurality of x-ray images obtained by performing x-ray imaging of the object using anode voltages of different sizes (dual energy scanning; ¶ 0034, ¶¶ 0086-0087, Fig. 5 S1 and S2);
communicating the sample set to the processor (output data; ¶¶ 0087-0088, Fig. 5 S2 and S3);
the processor receiving the sample set (acquires raw data; ¶¶ 0087-0088, Fig. 5 S2 and S3);
the processor comparing the plurality of x-ray images of the sample set to each other (discriminating the materials via correlation; ¶ 0092, ¶¶ 0095-0110, Fig. 5 S6);
the processor using differences between the plurality of x-ray images of the sample set to determine material of the object (discriminating the materials via correlation; ¶ 0092, ¶¶ 0095-0110, Fig. 5 S6);
the processor synthesizing a composite image of the object from the plurality of x-ray images of the sample set representing different materials constructing the object (generate fusion image; ¶ 0122, Fig. 5 S9), but Taguchi does not explicitly teach at least three x-ray images, anode voltages of at least three different sizes.
However, Yi teaches three x-ray images, anode voltages of at least three different sizes (multi-energy X-ray images and mutually different energy bands; ¶¶ 0063-0066).
Taguchi and Yi are in the same field of endeavor an X-ray imaging apparatus that acquires a plurality of X-ray images of an object in different energy bands to acquire material information of the object. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the X-ray imaging apparatus of Taguchi to include at least three x-ray images and anode voltages of at least three different sizes as taught by Yi. The combination improves the X-ray imaging apparatus by being able to distinguish similar materials from each other.
Regarding claim 2, Taguchi in view of Yi teach the method of claim 1 further comprising: but Taguchi does not explicitly teach determining whether there is a hazardous substance in the object based upon material information in the composite image.
However, Yi teaches determining whether there is a hazardous substance in the object based upon material information in the composite image (identify tumor; ¶ 0093 and ¶¶ 0118-0119).
Taguchi and Yi are in the same field of endeavor an X-ray imaging apparatus that acquires a plurality of X-ray images of an object in different energy bands to acquire material information of the object. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the X-ray imaging apparatus of Taguchi to determine a hazardous substance as taught by Yi. The combination improves the X-ray imaging apparatus by providing a cost effective of acquiring material information (tumor).
Regarding claim 3, Taguchi in view of Yi teach the method of claim 1 wherein the step of the x-ray imaging device capturing a sample set comprises: generating x-rays to be directed at the object using anode voltages sizes determined distinctly by a controller (¶ 0030 and ¶ 0043, Fig. 2, Taguchi); detecting that x-rays generated by the x-ray source have penetrated the object (¶¶ 0036-0040, Taguchi); and generating subject x-ray images according to anode voltage sizes (¶¶ 0025-0026 and ¶ 0119, Fig. 5 S8, Taguchi), but Taguchi does not explicitly teach anode voltages of at least three different sizes and the at least three anode voltage sizes.
However, Yi teaches anode voltages of at least three different sizes and the at least three anode voltage sizes (multi-energy X-ray images and mutually different energy bands; ¶¶ 0063-0066).
The motivation applied in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Taguchi in view of Yi teach the method of claim 1 wherein the step of the processor using differences between the plurality of x-ray images of the sample set to determine material of the object comprises: obtaining contrast change information of features included in the sample set based upon contrast differences of pixels included in each image of the sample set, and comparing contrast change information of the features included in the sample set to a standard database in which the contrast change information of reference objects is stored (comparing with known materials beforehand; ¶¶ 0098-0110, Taguchi).
Regarding claim 5, Taguchi in view of Yi teach the method of claim 1 wherein the object is a living body and the method further comprising differentiating between biological tissues (identify tissue, bone, and the like of patient O; ¶ 0034 and ¶ 0080, Taguchi).
Regarding claim 6, Taguchi in view of Yi teach method of claim 5 but Taguchi does not explicitly teach further comprising detecting cancerous growths in the body.
However, Yi teaches further comprising detecting cancerous growths in the body (identify tumor; ¶ 0093 and ¶¶ 0118-0119).
The motivation applied in claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, Taguchi teaches a system for determining material of an object using an x-ray imaging device in communication with a processor, the system comprising (X-ray CT apparatus 1 for discriminating a plurality of materials; ¶¶ 0025-0027, ¶¶ 0033-0041, ¶ 0054, ¶ 0072, ¶ 0085, Figs. 1, 4, and 5):
an x-ray imaging device (scanner 11; ¶ 0035, Fig. 1) configured to capture a sample set of x-ray images of the object using different anode voltage sizes (dual energy scanning; ¶ 0034, ¶¶ 0086-0087, Fig. 5 S1 and S2);
a memory unit for storing instructions (memory 42; ¶ 0055, Fig. 1); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to (CPU 41; ¶¶ 0055-0056, Fig. 1):
receive the sample set from the x-ray imaging device (acquires raw data; ¶¶ 0087-0088, Fig. 5 S2 and S3);
compare the x-ray images of the sample set to each other (discriminating the materials via correlation; ¶ 0092, ¶¶ 0095-0110, Fig. 5 S6);
use differences between the x-ray images of the sample set to determine material of the object (discriminating the materials via correlation; ¶ 0092, ¶¶ 0095-0110, Fig. 5 S6); and
synthesize a composite image of the object from the x-ray images of the sample set representing different materials constructing the object (generate fusion image; ¶ 0122, Fig. 5 S9),
but Taguchi does not explicitly teach at least three x-ray images,
at least three different anode voltage sizes.
However, Yi teaches at least three x-ray images, anode voltages of at least three different sizes (multi-energy X-ray images and mutually different energy bands; ¶¶ 0063-0066).
The motivation applied in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claims 13-16 recite similar limitation as claims 2 and 4-6 thus, arguments similar to that presented above for claims 2 and 4-6 are equally applicable to claims 13-16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (US 2015/0371378) teaches a method of processing x-ray images by training an artificial neural network to process multi-spectral x-ray projections to determine composition information about an object.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681